Why Net Neutrality is Your Friend

[Note: This blog post was later published by The Gazette as Nicholas Johnson, "Why Net Neutrality is Our Friend," "Insight,"The Gazette, June 2, 2017, p. A6]

[Graphic credit: ACLU]
President Donald Trump kept his promise. He said he’d “drain the swamp” in Washington. He has. What he didn’t tell us was that he would then fill his administration with the creatures that crawled out.

The news media and late night shows have reveled in their good fortune. Trump has provided them a daily flow of stories both entertaining and terrifying to move their audiences between tears and laughter.

But as a result, that 99 percent-plus of the federal government that’s not in the White House is mostly ignored by the media.

Farmers worry over the loss of overseas markets from Trump trade agreements. Public schools must deal with the loss of revenue from school vouchers. The oil and gas industry cheers a removal of regulations that rivals the Teapot Dome scandal that sent one of President Warren Harding’s cabinet members to prison.

And my old agency, now Trump’s Federal Communications Commission, is going about repealing the consumer protection called Network Neutrality. You don’t need to know anything about computers or the Internet to understand that one.

You do need to understand monopoly capitalism.

Most cities of any size have an abundant array of restaurants from which to choose – locations, menus, prices, and atmosphere. Aside from health concerns, “marketplace forces” provide adequate consumer protection.

By contrast, with rare exception most neighborhoods in those cities have no choice among monopolist internet service providers, such as Mediacom.

It’s the business of business to maximize profits by increasing prices and cutting costs (quality and services) until both reach optimum levels.

In a conversation with Chicago economist Milton Friedman he used the example of corporate pollution of rivers. “You are appealing to them to be ethical,” he said. “They can’t afford to be ethical. They can afford to comply with a law that’s also applicable to their competitors. Your answer is in Congress and state legislatures, not preaching in the streets.”

If an Internet service provider (ISP) also profits from distributing content it owns, it can make more money by censoring a competitor’s content, charging more for it, or slowing its delivery to your TV. If it doesn’t own content providers, it can bargain with those who are, providing them unfair advantages for the right price. And ISPs will set customers’ charges at the optimum profit maximizing level.

Harm to consumers will be limited only by the ISP’s imagination.

Once cities have as many ISPs as restaurants we can talk about “marketplace regulation.” Meanwhile, common decency requires that the FCC retain the consumer protection of Network Neutrality.

# # #

Net Neutrality: An Interview

November 13, 2014, 12:15 p.m.

Introduction: Because of the recent attention to net neutrality by the Federal Communications Commission and President Obama, I have received requests for explanations from a number of individuals. Given Vanessa Miller's excellent interview and explanations, I am taking the liberty of reproducing here her story from The Gazette of November 12, 2014, as it appeared online two days earlier. The story is copyright by The Gazette, and will be taken down if the paper requests. Information about subscribing to The Gazette can be found here.

UI professor and former FCC commissioner sides with Obama on net neutrality
Johnson: ‘The Internet holds so much promise for everybody’
The Gazette, November 12, 2014, p. A9

Net neutrality garnered national attention this week after President Barack Obama called on the Federal Communications Commission to adopt strict regulation over consumer broadband Internet.

But the topic long has been on the mind of University of Iowa law professor Nicholas Johnson.

Having served as a commissioner for the FCC from 1966 to 1973 — followed by stints as a presidential adviser for the White House Conference on Libraries and Information Services and head of a Washington-based media reform group — Johnson said he for years has held the position Obama espoused Monday.

“I have always felt it ought to be essentially controlled by Title II” of the Communications Act, Johnson told The Gazette on Tuesday.

Obama’s proposal urges the FCC to reclassify Internet service providers, like Comcast and Verizon, under Title II to give the commission power to prohibit them from blocking or slowing content and playing favorites with content providers.

The approach requires thinking about wired and wireless broadband service as a public utility, and Johnson said that’s how it should be. Ideally, he said, content and conduit would be totally separate — like the former AT&T network.

“Anyone who wants a phone gets a phone, everybody pays the same amount, and it’s not heavily subsidized,” Johnson said. “Once you got a telephone, you could say anything you wanted. That’s not saying you couldn’t break the law … but AT&T wasn’t going to get involved.”

That was a good model, according to Johnson, and it’s one that should be replicated for cable and Internet access. The Internet should be fair game for anyone to use any way they please, he said, and carriers shouldn’t be allowed to block, slow content, or prioritize service for those with the most money — offering faster Internet to providers willing to pay.

“They can’t say to Netflix and Amazon, we are going with just one of you, and it’s open bidding, and whoever pays the most to deliver the information in a timely way wins,” Johnson said. “We’ll just block the other one.”

That, he said, “would be really unfortunate.”

“Because the Internet holds so much promise for everybody,” Johnson said.

From entertainment and education to entrepreneurs and non-profit organizations, it offers an easy way to share information.

“There is no limit to what it can be,” Johnson said. “But the problem with turning some stuff entirely over to capitalism, with no regulation, is that it doesn’t best serve the public.”

From the global perspective, Johnson said, some countries have regulations that enable Internet speeds 10 times what Americans have at a much lower cost.

“We are really lagging behind the world as a result of turning the pricing and bandwidth decision over to these companies,” Johnson said.

The business of regulating monopolies or quasi-monopolies dates back to the late 1800s with a group of Iowa farmers upset about railroads playing favorites, according to Johnson. Those principals have been applied to other necessary services over time — like water, electricity and natural gas.

“They are regulated in a variety of ways, and one way is that they cannot play favorites,” Johnson said. “They have to provide service to everyone and charge the same rates.”

Part of the debate around Internet regulation is whether it’s considered a necessity.

“The question is, has the Internet taken on enough of those qualities,” Johnson said.

The FCC’s previous net neutrality rules were struck down by a federal appeals court in January, and the commission in May released a new proposal that would maintain light regulation. Obama on Monday said that proposal doesn’t go far enough.

Obama’s suggestions for the commission, an independent agency that doesn’t answer to the president, were praised by online content providers, like Netflix, but denounced by Internet providers, like Comcast, as being heavy-handed and likely to kill online investment and innovation.

Johnson said that although he’s in line with Obama, there is an issue with the president intervening with “such a heavy hand.” Before Johnson joined the FCC, he was appointed by President Lyndon B. Johnson to be the U.S. Maritime Administrator.

After he started on the commission, Johnson said, his communication with the president stopped.

“He respected that independence,” Johnson said.

Although Obama this week made clear he understands the separation of powers, Johnson said Obama also made it clear that he’d like the FCC to “decide it my way.”

As to whether the commission will, Johnson said, “It’s hard to predict.”

# # #

Net Neutrality: Social Change Via Satire and Ridicule

June 3, 2014, 11:00 a.m.

NOTE: Hopefully, after watching this John Oliver bit you, too, will want to file a comment with the FCC regarding its Net Neutrality Proceeding. (My comment is at the bottom of this blog essay.) Although it's easy to do, here are the easy 1-2-3 steps:

1. Prepare in advance the text of the comment you would like to file -- a sentence, or brief paragraph or two (to avoid the frustration of having something go wrong when entering it in the box to be provided, and having to start all over again).

2. If you have difficulty reaching the FCC form for filing comments, try the usual: use a different browser; check your settings for cookies and pop-ups. To reach the form you have two possible paths. (a) One is to go to http://www.fcc.gov/comments. On that page you'll see a list of FCC proceedings, click on "14-28" ("Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet"). If you don't see the list of proceedings there (as I did not when I first tried), try (b) going directly to the FCC's "Electronic Comment Filing System" (ECFS) at: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/hotdocket/list.action. The "Proceeding List" (that is, list of FCC proceedings) is at the top of that page. The proceeding you want ("Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet") is now the proceeding at the top of that list. Click on the link provided for its number: "14-28."

3. Either 2(a) or 2(b) will take you to the "ECFS Express Upload Form," http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/upload/display.action?z=lexe8

(a) The "Proceeding Number" blank is filled in for you already, "14-28." (b) Enter your name in the "Name of Filer" blank. (c) Enter your Email Address in its blank. (d) In the "Address" section, below, fill in your address, city, state, and zip (e) Block, copy and paste your prepared comment into the box provided (or just keystroke it if you didn't prepare one earlier) (f) When you're done, below that box click on "Continue." (g) This will take you to a page where you can either "Modify" or "Confirm" what you have just entered. If you are satisfied with what you see, click on "Confirm," and your comment will be sent -- and provide you notice that it has been accepted. (Note that this page also provides you with a link to where you can "check on the status of your filing.") You are now free to resume whatever you just interrupted in your life or work.

John Oliver Savages Federal Communications Commission

There are many alternative strategies for bringing about social change, reform, cultural change, or other improvements in the lives of ordinary people.

There is the academic approach: empirical research, data gathering, and the subsequent scholarly articles.

[Scroll down to view video from which this photo of John Oliver was taken.]

There are the popular books, think tank reports, congressional hearings and reports.

There is the use of legal and political process in the form of strategic litigation, or the lobbying of legislative bodies.

There are the philosophical or religious appeals to our better angels, what is required of us morally and ethically.

There is violence -- sometimes, as with our abolition of slavery, including actual war.

And then, there is satire and ridicule. For example, the movie "Network" addressed in roughly two hours what I spent seven years writing about in the form of dissents to FCC opinions.

There are also questions regarding the effectiveness of each of these alternative strategies. The major question regarding reform via satire is the extent to which it is taken seriously, let alone produces action. Is it as quickly forgotten as it initially brought on the joy of laughter? How many of the jokes you heard in someone's stand-up routine one evening can you remember the next morning?

John Oliver seems to have come up with an answer to that question -- or may have. We'll have to await reports of how many comments his appeal produced at the FCC.

Here is what I consider one of the most brilliant examples of satire in the cause of education and advocacy to action I can recall ever seeing.



[Excerpt credit: John Oliver last appeared on Comedy Central's Daily Show with Jon Stewart last December 2013, after seven years with the show. Since April 27 he has been hosting his own weekly show, Last Week Tonight with John Oliver on HBO, Sunday nights at 11:00 ET. The excerpt from his June 1 show has appeared a number of places on the Internet; this one is from YouTube, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpbOEoRrHyU. See, Joan E. Solsman, "John Oliver's Net neutrality response swamps FCC," cnet.com, June 3, 2014.]

Curious as to what comment I submitted to the FCC? Here it is:

The Internet is as much of a common carrier, a public utility, as the postal system and early AT&T, can serve similar functions in binding our nation together and encouraging communication, with low prices for users, equal access, pricing, and speeds of transmission for all. Without this structure and approach, the FCC -- however dedicated and committed -- will be unable to even know about, let alone prevent, the hundreds or thousands of abuses that will inevitably arise.
-- Nicholas Johnson, former Commissioner, FCC, 1966-73

# # #

48 Hours to Save the Internet

January 12, 2009, 11:00 a.m.

Tell the FCC You Care
(brought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
The FCC is about to decide whether the phone and cable companies are going to be able to censor the content you can send, and receive, through the Internet.

If you care, you might let them know -- before the comment period expires this Thursday, January 14.

It's easy. It's cool. It's fun. And, oh yes, it can also be a useful contribution to the preservation of the First Amendment.

Just go to the freepress.net Web site for the purpose: Save The Internet, http://www.savetheinternet.com/fcc-comments. (If you'd like to know more about that outfit see the bottom of this blog entry.) Follow the simple directions. Insert your comment in the box. (If you can't think of what to say just try, "Save the Internet!" or "Give us meaningful Net Neutrality.") Almost immediately you'll get a neat response, that includes your comment, back from the FCC.

Here's what I submitted:

As a former FCC commissioner I watched -- and protested -- what happens when those who provide the conduits are permitted to also own and control the content. It occurred when the three networks dominated the television industry, and could create hits for the shows they owned merely by broadcasting them from their O-and-O stations -- to the disadvantage of the independent producers, and the creativity offered the audience. It occurred when those who wired up America for cable television distribution were permitted to own the sources of cable programming -- to the disadvantage of those they shut out of their distribution systems, and the American people.

There were problems with AT&T. I wrote dissenting opinions about them, and played a role in the Carterfone and MCI cases in opening up the telephone industry to competition. But one problem it did not have was its disinterest in, and distance from, content. Everyone who wanted a phone had a legal right to one, and to use it to say whatever they wanted through AT&T's wires (subject, of course, to regulation by others for fraud or criminal activity; but not control of content or censorship by the phone company).

The strength, the creativity, the economic engine, of the Internet has been in large measure a result of its openness to all, its lack of censorship powers on the part of those providing the conduits.

Please stand up for the American people, the First Amendment, economic innovation, growth and jobs. Stand up to the telephone and cable companies. Give us some meaningful Net Neutrality regulations.

Thank you.

-- Nicholas Johnson

Here are excerpts from freepress' description of itself:

Free Press Basics

Free Press is a national, nonpartisan, nonprofit organization working to reform the media. Through education, organizing and advocacy, we promote diverse and independent media ownership, strong public media, quality journalism, and universal access to communications.

Free Press was launched in late 2002 by media scholar Robert W. McChesney, journalist John Nichols and Josh Silver, our executive director. Today, Free Press is the largest media reform organization in the United States, with nearly half-a-million activists and members and a full-time staff of more than 30 based in our offices in Washington, D.C., and Florence, Mass.

Free Press and the Free Press Action Fund, our advocacy arm, are nonprofit organizations that rely on the support of our members. Please click here to make a donation or learn about member benefits.

Our Purpose

Media play a huge role in our lives. TV, radio, the Internet, movies, books and newspapers inform and influence our ideas, opinions, values and beliefs. They shape our understanding of the world and give us the information we need to hold our leaders accountable. But our media system is failing.

This failure isn't natural. For far too long, corrupt media policy has been made behind closed doors in the public's name but without our informed consent. If we want better media, we need better media policies. If we want better policies, we must engage more people in policy debates and demand better media.

That's why Free Press was created. We're working to make media reform a bona fide political issue in America. Powerful telecommunications, cable and broadcasting companies have plenty of lobbyists to do their bidding. We're making sure the public has a seat at the table, and we're building a movement to make sure the media serve the public interest.

Free Press believes that media reform is crucial not just for creating better news and entertainment, but to advancing every issue you care about. A vibrant, diverse and independent media is the cornerstone of a healthy democracy.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Watch its Web site for announcements of the next national convention. Join with thousands of American media mavens and activists for a few days of fun, inspiration, and hope.
_______________
* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source, even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson
# # #